Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: RFC: Is the Bible encoded in DNA?

by bliako (Prior)
on May 17, 2018 at 16:29 UTC ( #1214757=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RFC: Is the Bible encoded in DNA?

After reading some of your answers to other comments, it seems to me that you are constantly changing the rules and giving what you try to do better odds to succeed. Alas there is no chance to succeed: even if there was god he/she/it would be not be so lame as to "scratch their name" (or "do Graffiti on his best work" as some other fellow here put it) as Kilroy in the public toilets.

At first you say 5 first verses from the Genesis is all you are looking to match but later you ask yourself how many characters is statistically significant.

Later you said that you will also read the DNA backwards. And why not side-ways I ask? Or in leave-one-out fashion -- given how sloppy god is.

You then say that you want to convert the bases to bits using a particular (intuitive) method. But billion other methods exist. So soon you will try another one and another one. One of it will give you better results, 46 characters instead of the average 45. Is that god's encoding of choice?

You may soon discover that there are endless possibilities (I believe 64P22 = 90310590525273233291833690659225600000) to encode 64 codons to 22 alphabet letters. That's a few orders of magnitude more than the million monkeys suggested by another person in here.

For some of these encodings you are bound to go a bit further to finding god in a place who is *definetely* not.

The first doctrine of the Scientific Method - which is the last thing in the mind of bigots (I mean those "lobotomised by religion", greek "θρησκόληπτος") - is to first (before results come out) set the rules of the experiment and define exactly what each possible outcome means for the conclusions.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Is the Bible encoded in DNA?
by morgon (Priest) on May 17, 2018 at 18:52 UTC
    The first doctrine of the Scientific Method
    If you really believe that there is anything like "the" scientific method you should read some Kuhn (or Feyerabend if you want to be extreme).

    Let him have his fun, if he really succeeds in finding an encoding that makes the thora appear in the human dna I'd consider that to be a sensation, if he (most likely) will fail, then he's learned some perl along the way.

    No harm in that.

       No harm in that.

      Except for when, one day, you read the press headlines: "God's word found in Human DNA". They will never bother to tell you that given all the free variables (encoding, number of verses, etc) and the continuous moving-the-goalposts, the odds suddenly became favourable for god (Inc.).

      I can happily co-exist with your citations. After all science is an anarchistic enterprise. !But! there must be some rules in conducting experiments and assessing their outcomes when we share knowledge, else we are all blind.

      Otherwise,

      no harm in that

        42 and "no harm in that" gosh are we all living in the hitchhiker's guide. Now here is a God and His Word comes in most forums.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1214757]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2020-12-01 00:32 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?